Appeal No. 1996-2963 Page 11 Application 07/952,427 it would have been obvious to construct Mohr’s container with the materials disclosed by Woo including using a “blend of polypropylene, styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SBS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)....” According to appellants (brief, pages 16 and 17), however, Woo does not disclose or suggest forming an inner surface portion of a container sidewall with SBS in a manner corresponding to the claimed container, rather Woo discloses forming an intermediate tie layer therewith. We observe that the examiner does not specifically address appellants’ arguments regarding this rejection in the answer. Moreover, the disclosure of Woo (see, e.g., column 3, lines 10-49) appears to generally support appellants’ viewpoint. Hence, on this record, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 31. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr in view of Meruelo and to reject claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr -11-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007